Berger's actions often at odds with stance on transparency

Published: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 4:57 p.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 4:57 p.m.

Since running for office in 2010, New Hanover County Commissioner Brian Berger has consistently stated his commitment to accountability and transparency, making these promises a part of almost every interview and public statement he has made during his time as a county commissioner.

Facts

What's in the emails

The “confidential” emails were sent between January 2011 and March 2013All emails included in this article were sent to county staff. Most of the more than 400 emails were sent to the county clerks to the board, County Manager Chris Coudriet and County Attorney Wanda Copley.A majority of the emails make reference to Commissioner Brian Berger's forced removal from the Department of Social Services (DSS) board in December 2011. Berger claims that his removal from the board was illegal though many of the email responses back to him from Copley and DSS employees claim otherwise.Berger also frequently mentions the county travel policy that was unanimously adopted in June 2012. It bans any commissioner from travel at the county's expense and from attended any local events that have a cost associated with them until forfeited funds are repaid. Berger is unable to travel in an official capacity because he owes the county $287.16 for previous unused hotel rooms and conference fees. Berger claims in many of the emails that he does not owe anything and that instead the county owes him thousands.

But Berger's actions regularly contradict these statements.

The StarNews submitted a public records request to Berger on April 2 asking for all emails sent from his personal email account relating to his work as a commissioner. The request specifically stated that “this includes all emails sent to county staff and all emails illegally marked confidential.”

N.C. Public Records Law excludes attorney-client information, personnel matters and information, trade secrets, patient medical records and other private information. All other emails sent by public officials are fair game.

Berger never complied with the request, though he did say there couldn't be “more than a handful” of these emails.

In response to his non-compliance, the StarNews submitted another public records request – this time to New Hanover County. It requested all emails sent to county staff from Berger's accounts, both his commissioner account and his personal email, that had been illegally marked as confidential. These emails were cleared by the county legal department and more than 400 confidential emails sent to staff between 2011 and the present were returned.

A ‘formality'

Marking emails as “confidential” blocks Berger's messages from being presented on the public server at the county Government Center. Emails marked “confidential” are programmed to skip the public viewing computer since those emails supposedly contain information not deemed public record by state law. Emails from personal accounts also do not show up on the public server.

Several of the illegally marked emails will serve as evidence against Berger at his upcoming amotion hearing on May 20.

When questioned Tuesday morning about his apparent lack of transparency and illegal use of the confidential tag, Berger said he uses the confidential tags on emails as a “formality.”

“I typically use ‘confidential' to protect other people or information of a non-personal nature or as a formality,” Berger said in a text message.

Berger added his own confidentiality warning to the bottom of his email signature, similar to that of the county attorney. He also began adding “Discussion of this confidential matter is not authorized by law and is NOT authorized by this individual, or representatives of this individual, given the protected, highly-personal and privacy-protected contents” as the last sentence in the body of his emails in March 2013.

“I'm not going to break confidentiality and make it public, but I just assume everything I do is public,” he texted. “ ... I have a very hard time with a lot of that information and discussions that have taken place that the public ought to know about, but I've still respected confidentiality and not violated the process.”

‘Slanderous accusations'

However, the nature of Berger's confidential emails is rarely – if ever – related to discussions on county policy. The “confidential” tag is used most often to send emails berating county staff.

However, Berger said because these are confidential emails he is not berating staff – just “holding them accountable.”

“In a public meeting, on TV, I consider that berating. Public berating,” he texted. “... It's not in the public interest and I'm not going to do it when there are more pressing issues to address.”

Questions over Berger's conflicting behavior arose during the April 8 meeting where his fellow board members ultimately decided to begin the amotion process to potentially remove Berger from the board.

At this meeting, Berger said the main point of passing out hundreds of copies of a 10-page document that included attacks against county officials and staff was primarily to help a county resident involved in a domestic dispute.

But Commissioner Tom Wolfe disagreed.

“I didn't see any of that in those documents. I just saw slanderous accusations to the entire staff,” Wolfe told Berger. “ ... You're a disgrace to what we call public office. You have brought shame and dishonor upon this county.”

The commissioners voted to begin the amotion process in early April, a common law procedure that gives a private corporation the ability to remove an officer because he is unfit, and approved the amotion rules for the county Monday.

<p>Since running for office in 2010, New Hanover County Commissioner <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/section/topic9976"><b>Brian Berger</b></a> has consistently stated his commitment to accountability and transparency, making these promises a part of almost every interview and public statement he has made during his time as a county commissioner.</p><p>But Berger's actions regularly contradict these statements.</p><p>The StarNews submitted a public records request to Berger on April 2 asking for all emails sent from his personal email account relating to his work as a commissioner. The request specifically stated that “this includes all emails sent to county staff and all emails illegally marked confidential.”</p><p>N.C. Public Records Law excludes attorney-client information, personnel matters and information, trade secrets, patient medical records and other private information. All other emails sent by public officials are fair game.</p><p>Berger never complied with the request, though he did say there couldn't be “more than a handful” of these emails.</p><p>In response to his non-compliance, the StarNews submitted another public records request – this time to New Hanover County. It requested all emails sent to county staff from Berger's accounts, both his commissioner account and his personal email, that had been illegally marked as confidential. These emails were cleared by the county legal department and more than 400 confidential emails sent to staff between 2011 and the present were returned.</p><h3>A 'formality'</h3>
<p>Marking emails as “confidential” blocks Berger's messages from being presented on the public server at the county Government Center. Emails marked “confidential” are programmed to skip the public viewing computer since those emails supposedly contain information not deemed public record by state law. Emails from personal accounts also do not show up on the public server.</p><p>Several of the illegally marked emails will serve as evidence against Berger at his upcoming amotion hearing on May 20.</p><p>When questioned Tuesday morning about his apparent lack of transparency and illegal use of the confidential tag, Berger said he uses the confidential tags on emails as a “formality.”</p><p>“I typically use 'confidential' to protect other people or information of a non-personal nature or as a formality,” Berger said in a text message. </p><p>Berger added his own confidentiality warning to the bottom of his email signature, similar to that of the county attorney. He also began adding “Discussion of this confidential matter is not authorized by law and is NOT authorized by this individual, or representatives of this individual, given the protected, highly-personal and privacy-protected contents” as the last sentence in the body of his emails in March 2013.</p><p>“I'm not going to break confidentiality and make it public, but I just assume everything I do is public,” he texted. “ ... I have a very hard time with a lot of that information and discussions that have taken place that the public ought to know about, but I've still respected confidentiality and not violated the process.”</p><h3>'Slanderous accusations'</h3>
<p>However, the nature of Berger's confidential emails is rarely – if ever – related to discussions on county policy. The “confidential” tag is used most often to send emails berating county staff.</p><p>However, Berger said because these are confidential emails he is not berating staff – just “holding them accountable.”</p><p>“In a public meeting, on TV, I consider that berating. Public berating,” he texted. “... It's not in the public interest and I'm not going to do it when there are more pressing issues to address.”</p><p>Questions over Berger's conflicting behavior arose during the April 8 meeting where his fellow board members ultimately decided to begin the amotion process to potentially remove Berger from the board.</p><p>At this meeting, Berger said the main point of passing out hundreds of copies of a 10-page document that included attacks against county officials and staff was primarily to help a county resident involved in a domestic dispute. </p><p>But Commissioner Tom Wolfe disagreed.</p><p>“I didn't see any of that in those documents. I just saw slanderous accusations to the entire staff,” Wolfe told Berger. “ ... You're a disgrace to what we call public office. You have brought shame and dishonor upon this county.”</p><p>The commissioners voted to begin the amotion process in early April, a common law procedure that gives a private corporation the ability to remove an officer because he is unfit, and approved the amotion rules for the county Monday.</p><p><i></p><p>Ashley Withers: 343-2223</p><p>On <a href="http://www.starnewsonline.com/section/news41"><b>Twitter</b></a>: @AshleyWithers</i></p>